Letters to Legislators

To the members of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee/Senate Criminal Justice Committee:

Thank you for taking time to consider SB1316/HB2403 today. This bill ensures that discussions of sexuality, and decisions thereof stay between children and their families. Currently Texas penal code section 21.11 prevents adults from taking sexual advantage of children. This law which prohibits sexual intercourse between adults and minors is a very good law, protecting the innocence of children and jailing those who would sexually harm them.

Furthermore this law has a very good exception to the rule. Under the same penal code section there is an affirmative defense for children who are within a three year age range of each other. If a child who is 18 is sexually intimate with a child who is 16 neither child will be criminally prosecuted. This too is a very good policy that protects the interest of children.

While this affirmative defense is a good and reasonable law it has one glaring fault: The law only provides the affirmative defense in the situation that the children involved are of the opposite gender.If those children are of the same gender then there is no protection under the law. The situation that this creates the potential for situations where children might be criminally prosecuted, jailed, and forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives.

It is not our intention to comment on the wisdom of children engaging in sexual activity prior to the age of 17, provided the other partner falls within the three year age range. Whether the decision is a wise one or a poor one, it is a decision best left to Texas families to decide. Parents, not the government, should be having conversations with their children when sex is and is not appropriate. Parents should be the ones to guide children in those decision making processes not a state judge.

As Republicans, it is our desire to see less government interference with people’s lives. It should be a shared value across party lines to ensure the well-being of every Texas child. If we keep these two principles in mind it is hard to see a reasonable scenario where it is decent or appropriate for the government intruding on parental rights and criminally prosecute children for consensual sexual activity.

Thank you for taking the time today to consider SB237 which would amend the Texas labor laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the list of enumerated categories which are protected from discrimination in employment practices.

This legislation, which extends current law to protect the above mentioned categories, is aimed to prevent Texas citizens from facing unfair practices in the work place. Contrary to public perception, under Texas law it is currently legal to fire or discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. If a person is fired based on these traits in Texas, there is no legal recourse for them to take.

During every civil rights struggle in American history the Republican Party was on the vanguard of promoting civil rights. The Republican Party fought strongly for promoting the right of women to vote, electing the first female member of Congress. The Republican Party was created in large part in opposition to slavery and the spread thereof. We fought strongly to end segregation and were the lead proponents of civil rights legislation which we are discussing today. The Republican Party was the political party which most strongly supported the idea that one should not be fired or discriminated against based on innate categories which do not reflect on job performance.

Today we urge the members of this committee to uphold this strong tradition of fighting for equal rights and civil protections. One’s sexual orientation and gender identity have no bearing on his or her ability to hold a job. As such it should not be a factor considered in the hiring or firing process. You will hear before you today testimony from several people who have been fired from their jobs based on those characteristics. These people did not have legal recourse when fired. We urge you to listen to their stories and consider carefully the voices of all those who have similarly faced discrimination but are not before you today. Please know for every person that you hear from today there are hundreds more who you will not hear from.

To the members of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee/Senate Criminal Justice Committee:

Thank you for taking time to consider SB538/HB1701 today. This bill is an important piece of legislation designed to ensure personal liberty in the State of Texas. Prior to 2003 it was illegal for consenting adults of the same sex to have consensual intercourse in the privacy of their own home under the Homosexual Conduct Law. This law was a huge burden on the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community, pushing decades of discrimination. It is also an affront to every Texan who believes matters of consensual sexual intercourse are a matter best left to the individual.

In 2003 the United States Supreme Court ruled this law unconstitutional as a violation of the fundamental right to privacy. The case, Lawrence v. Texas, was written by Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointee and conservative jurist. The case clearly established that the Texas Homosexual Sexual Conduct act was unenforceable and a violation of personal freedom. Even in his dissent Justice Clarence Thomas held that even though he felt the law was constitutional were he a member of the state legislature of Texas he would vote to repeal the law which he felt was “uncommonly silly”. This law, ridiculed by one of the greatest legal minds in conservative jurisprudence, has made Texas look “uncommonly silly” by having failed to remove it from the books.

Not only is the law an affront to personal liberty, unconstitutional, and unenforceable, it is also costing the state of Texas its scarce financial resources. In 2009 two men were caught showing mild public displays of affection at a local restaurant. The restaurant incensed that the couple was showing public affection called the police to remove the couple from their restaurant. Upon arrival, the police threatened the couple with enforcement of the Texas Homosexual Conduct Act a full six years after having been ruled unconstitutional. The couple then removed themselves from the restaurant without further incident, however later sued the municipality of El Paso and won a settlement from the city. Unconstitutional laws should never be attempted to be enforced, especially when those laws are costing the state of Texas money. As fiscal conservatives we see no reason that the state should be wasting tax dollars to make a political statement by keeping this law on the books, especially one that the vast majority of the state of Texas would disagree with.

A rising chorus of conservatives and Republicans has stepped up to urge repeal of the Texas Homosexual Conduct Act. This has cumulated in the removal of support for the Homosexual Conduct Act from the Texas Republican Party Platform. Party activists weighed and considered the implication of support for this law and decided that the Republican Party of Texas no longer represented the values of that law. As Republicans we feel it is important that the government stay out of our pocketbooks, out of our business, and out of our bedrooms. It is not only good public policy but common sense as well. We hope that the committee takes into consideration all testimony about this bill and favorably votes this legislation out of committee.

To the Members of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee:

Thank you for taking the time to listen to House Bill 201. This piece of legislation is aimed towards eliminating an unfair intrusion on parental rights in the state of Texas. House Bill 201 eliminates an unfair burden on the children of same gender parents in Texas by giving only one parent the proper paperwork for their adoption. By lack of proper supplemental birth certificate the government presents barriers for a child being able to enroll in school, travel out of country, or receive a range of government benefits. The purpose of HB 201 is to remove language from the Health and Safety Code that harms adopted children. The current language results in each of these adopted children having incorrect birth certificates, and it further results in some children having neither parent on theirbirth certificate.

Not having both parents on a child’s birth certificate is burdening enough but for certain children, they must face the burden of not having either parent on their birth certificate. For example for children adopted out of foster care after their birth parents’ rights have been terminated, and who are then adopted jointly by a same-gender couple, the Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics will not put EITHER adoptive parent on the child’s birth certificate. For children who are planned and brought into this world by a same-gender couple, only one parent can currently be on the child’s birth certificate. Due to this law adopted children cannot get access to accurate identification and have to find workarounds to get social security numbers, passports, enroll in school, obtain medical insurance or emergency medical care, and prove citizenship.

When neither adoptive parent can be placed on a child’s birth certificate it presents significant risks to that child. In those situations, the biological parents can (and have) appear and obtain certified copies of the child’s birth certificate because they are the only ones listed. Foster children suffer significant identity theft, from these families of origin whose rights were terminated. As a result of this offending language – that HB 201 seeks to remove – terminated parents can get birth certificates and then social security cards and can use the child’s identifying information to obtain bogus loans, cars, credit, etc. etc.

As Republicans and conservatives it is our belief that the government should not intrude on the relationship between a parent and their child. Same gender couples adopting children is a legal fact in Texas. Refusal to allow the state to issue the proper legal paperwork is a form of discrimination against the children of said adoptions. We believe in limited government, which means respecting the rights of Texas families to make their own family decisions. Those decisions should not face inference by government bureaucracy.

When discussing this legislation we urge you to consider several important factors. First and most importantly we urge you to consider the welfare of the children, already discussed thoroughly. A vote against this legislation is a vote against those children. Second we remind you of your obligation to uphold the constitution. As evidenced by decision Adar, et al v. Smith, the courts have ruled that similar laws denying proper representation of the parent child relationship is unconstitutional. We also remind you of your obligation to represent all of your constituents. Census data reveals that at least one same sex couple with children lives in every county in Texas. Failure to vote this bill favorably out of committee is a failure to represent the interest of those families in your district. Finally we urge you to look at this issue from a perspective of the proper role of government. We challenge each member to consider whether in their conscious would think that coming between a parent and their child is the proper role of government. With a lack opposition to this legislation in the platform of from either major political party, the question of whether to support this legislation should be devoid of partisan influence. We urge all members of the committee to meet their obligation to consider the merits of this proposal and vote based on those merits alone.

We urge the membership of this committee to consider the welfare of Texas children as we approach the debate on this issue. It is your obligation as committee members to put the welfare of our future generations ahead of any political considerations. We urge you to consider this legislation today and vote it out of committee. It is the sensible thing to do, it is the right thing to do.

On behalf of Michael Cargill, President of LCR-Austin and Jeff Knoll, Vice President of LCR-Austin

To the Members of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee:

On behalf of our family, the LGBT community at large, and the Log Cabin Republicans of Austin of which we serve as President and Vice President, we would like to thank you for taking the time to listen to House Bill 201.

As you know, House Bill 201 would restore the law to its wording and affect prior to May 1997 in that it would allow two women or two men to be listed as a child’s parents on that child’s supplemental birth certificate.

As the law stands now, only one man and one woman may be listed as parents on the supplemental birth certificate.This has a drastically negative affect on same-sex couples, like ourselves, who have adopted or plan to adopt a child.

As the law stands now, the parent not listed on the supplemental birth certificate is not able to carry out many actions, rights, and privileges that many parents take for granted.They are unable to register their own child for school.They are unable to obtain a passport for their own child.They are unable to secure medical care for their own child.

In addition, the law as it stands now affects more than just the LGBT community.We all know of situations in which a child’s mother or father may be absent from the child’s life, and another relative adopts the child as their second parent to ensure constant legal guardianship for the child should something happen to the remaining, non-absent parent.If the remaining, non-absent parent and the relative stepping in as a second parent are of the same sex, the law as it stands now would prohibit both parents from being listed on the supplemental birth certificate.

While the Texas court system has granted parental rights to same-sex parents via legal adoption, the state has chosen not to acknowledge those parental rights via the one document that will follow the child through their entire life.

The law as it stands now unjustly punishes adopted children, the one party in the situation that deserves and warrants the most protection.Together we can revert the law to its original intent and right this wrong.

As a gay couple who dream of adopting and raising children together, we hope you do everything in your power to protect and enrich the lives of our future children.